The Washington Examiner reported last week that “at 42.4 million, there are now more immigrants, legal and illegal, in America than ever before, fueled by a massive flood from Muslim nations….And while the doors remain open on the U.S.-Mexico border, the biggest percentage increases in immigration are all from largely Muslim nations.” What could possibly go wrong? Hillary Clinton knows, as she revealed in a 2013 email that makes her current public position on immigration absolutely inexplicable.

The Examiner added that according to Steven A. Camarota and Karen Zeigler of the Center for Immigration Studies: “The sending countries with the largest percentage increases in immigrants living in the United States from 2010 to 2014 were Saudi Arabia (up 93 percent), Bangladesh (up 37 percent), Iraq (up 36 percent), Egypt (up 25 percent), and Pakistan, India, and Ethiopia (each up 24 percent).”

Hillary Clinton, despite her determination to increase the number of Syrian refugees entering the United States by 550%, knows very well the risks involved in this massive influx of Muslim immigrants, and in her scheme to increase their number even more. The Daily Caller reported Monday that “in a private 2013 speech, Hillary Clinton worried about the risk of ‘jihadists’ entering Jordan with ‘legitimate refugees’ because ‘they can’t possibly vet all those refugees.’”

Clinton said in a speech before the Jewish United Fund Of Metropolitan Chicago: “So I think you’re right to have gone to the places that you visited because there’s a discussion going on now across the region to try to see where there might be common ground to deal with the threat posed by extremism, and particularly with Syria, which has everyone quite worried, Jordan because it’s on their border and they have hundreds of thousands of refugees and they can’t possibly vet all those refugees. So they don’t know if, you know, jihadists are coming in along with legitimate refugees. Turkey for the same reason.”

Clinton vowed during her second presidential debate with Donald Trump: “I will not let anyone into our country that I think poses a risk to us.” So she apparently believes that while Jordan and Turkey cannot vet the refugees and winnow out the jihadis from among peaceful Muslims, the United States government under a Hillary Clinton administration will be able to do so.

This is an extraordinary claim: two Muslim nations are unable to distinguish jihadis from peaceful Muslims, but a non-Muslim nation will be able to do so? Hillary Clinton could only advance such a proposition in a world in which non-Muslim spokesmen such as John Kerry, David Cameron and Pope Francis pronounce confidently and authoritatively on the nature of Islam, blithely contradicting Islamic law and theological consensus, as well as the closely-argued Qur’anic exegeses of numerous jihad leaders, in telling us that Islam is a religion of peace that rejects every form of violence. Clinton herself has declared: “Islam is not our adversary. Muslims are peaceful and tolerant people and have nothing whatsoever to do with terrorism.”

Since she is so sure that she knows all about Islam and Muslims, Clinton is doubtless sure that she will be able to ensure that U.S. immigration and refugee authorities “will not let anyone into our country that I think poses a risk to us.” Yet when she makes statements so divorced from reality as her claim that Muslims “have nothing whatsoever to do with terrorism,” she doesn’t exactly inspire confidence that those whom she thinks pose a risk to us will be those who actually do pose a risk to us.

Even worse, when as far back as three years ago, she indicated that she had some idea of the difficulty even for Muslim countries to vet the refugees properly, her advocacy of a steep increase in Muslim immigration is, at very least, astonishingly irresponsible. Her position appears to be based on a toxic combination of willful ignorance and hubris – toxic not for her presidential chances, but for the possibility that a Hillary Clinton presidency would be anything other than an unmitigated disaster for the United States.

It’s no brain surgery, but the media have long failed to provide a clear credible answer. They are unable to come up with an answer or don’t like the answer that’s staring them in the face. The main reason behind successful immigration should be painfully obvious to even the most dimwitted of observers: Some groups of people are almost always highly successful given only half a chance (Jews*, Hindus/Sikhs and Chinese people, for example), while others (Muslims, blacks** and Roma***, for instance) fare badly almost irrespective of circumstances. The biggest group of humanity can be found somewhere between those two extremes – the perennial overachievers and the professional never-do-wells.

Muslim Immigration and Multicultural Madness have left a trail of misery and mayhem across Germany – with far worse to come because of demographics · Muslims make up only 9% of Berlin’s population, yet account for 70% of young repeat criminals, revealed Berlin public prosecutor Roman Reusch http://www.spiegel.de/spiegel/print/d-51448987.html. To be more precise, 46% of Berlin’s juvenile serial criminals are of Arab descent, while 33% of them have Turkish ancestry

…

Muslim immigration is just one long tale of woe and misery for the long-suffering host countries, which are in for far worse to come in the decades ahead because of barely understood demographic realities. Incidentally, the same sad observation can be made of the Black Diaspora in Western Europe, North America, Latin America and the Caribbean (see previous statistics-packed emails and upcoming info – you have yet to receive these!).

Huma Abedin, above, is a key aide to Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton. But her close ties to Islamic fundamentalists has some questioning her role as Clinton’s “shadow.” (AP)

Some have expressed concern that Bill Clinton might be back in the White House, this time as the first gentleman.

But as worried as they might be, at least Bill isn’t a supporter of Shariah law. We wonder if we can say the same thing about the person who will be one of Hillary’s chief, if not top, advisor.

Huma Abedin has been called Hillary’s “shadow” by Politico. Hillary has said if she had a second daughter, it would be Abedin. She has been with the Democratic presidential candidate since 1996, when Hillary was first lady.

Abedin has followed Clinton through her years as a U.S. senator from New York and was by her side when Hillary was wrecking America’s foreign relations and making a mess in the Middle East as secretary of state. While deputy chief of staff to Clinton at State, Abedin also worked for the Clinton Foundation and Teneo, a consulting firm that does business with international business titans.

Today, Abedin is ranked third in the Clinton presidential campaign hierarchy. If Hillary is elected, Abedin will surely have an office in the West Wing where she will use her formidable influence on Clinton to shape administration policy.

Just as Abedin has trailed Clinton for two decades, a serious question has trailed Abedin: Is she sympathetic to radical Islamists and a proponent of Shariah law in the U.S.? This question isn’t asked because she’s a practicing Muslim and speaks fluent Arabic. It’s due to her family ties.

Four years ago, five congressman sent a letter to the State Department inspector general, charging that Abedin’s father, mother and brother were associated with the Muslim Brotherhood, which is considered a terrorist organization by several nations, though not the U.S. The letter cited “a personal intervention by Secretary Clinton that allowed a prominent Muslim Brotherhood leader, Tariq Ramadan, to enter the United States — overturning a policy of the previous administration that precluded him from doing so.”

For their efforts, the five U.S. lawmakers were treated as cranks by the Democrats and media. But were they on to something? That’s unknown. The story essentially died. The legacy media couldn’t be expected to dig into it because it might cast one of their own — a Democrat — in a poor light.

We do know some things, though, and one of them is that Abedin’s late father, Syed Abedin, was a firm defender of Shariah law. A video from a 1971 interview that has recently surfaced shows Syed, a Muslim scholar, discussing Islam’s “hostile” response to the West’s involvement in the Middle East. He seems to also argue that Shariah law must be enforced by national governments in Muslim countries.

Huma’s mother, Saleha Abedin, also has an interesting history. She was editor-in-chief of the Journal of Muslim Minority Affairs, a Shariah law periodical, from 1995 to 2008. Paul Sperry, a former IBD bureau chief, reported last month in the New York Post that Huma worked “for her mother’s journal through 2008. She is listed as ‘assistant editor’ on the masthead of the 2002 issue in which her mother suggested the U.S. was doomed to be attacked on 9/11 because of ‘sanctions’ it leveled against Iraq and other ‘injustices’ allegedly heaped on the Muslim world.”

Huma’s brother, Hassan, is also an editor at the Journal of Muslim Minority Affairs.

Huma’s mother’s sketchy ties don’t end on those pages. Kenneth R. Timmerman, a former Republican congressional candidate and current Donald Trump supporter, wrote last month inThe Hill that Saleha “sits on the Presidency Staff Council of the International Islamic Council for Da’wa and Relief, a group that is chaired by the leader of the Muslim Brotherhood, Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi.”

Huma’s father had his own Muslim Brotherhood connection, says former federal prosecutor Andrew McCarthy. And it wasn’t tenuous.

“There is persuasive evidence,” he wrote in 2012 in PJ Media, “that her father was a member of the Brotherhood.”

One can imagine the shape of the conversations around the Abedin dinner table. Huma must be steeped in the twisted ideas that drive Islam’s hostility toward the West. Could it plausibly be any other way?

Of course the mainstream media don’t care much. They see it as their job to get Clinton elected, no matter who she has hitched herself to.

Imagine, though, the media response if it turned out that the mother of one of Trump’s high-ranking advisors had been a member of a group of harmless old ladies who met now and then to honor the Confederate dead and tend to their graves. There would be an inquisition. That person would be drummed out of her position and have to go into hiding. The issue would become a truncheon used to club Trump whenever the campaign-media complex needed it.

But anyone associated with Hillary Clinton is an angel who should never be held up to scrutiny, no matter what their family ties are.

Abedin, herself, worked on an Islamist journal for 12 years, beginning the year she became a White House intern. She hasn’t commented on that job.

Concerns about Huma Abedin, a top aide to Hillary Clinton, both when she was secretary of state and now, as the Democratic presidential nominee, began surfacing in 2012. According to leaked emails, Abedin is slated to become secretary of state if Hillary Clinton is elected president.

In 2012, Rep. Michele Bachmann and four other members of Congress requested information about the influence of Muslim Brotherhood-tied groups and individuals in the U.S. government, including Abedin, who worked for 12 years as an assistant editor of an Islamist journal that spewed extremism.

Abedin’s tenure at the Journal of Muslim Minority Affairs began in 1996, the year she began working as an intern at the White house.

Now more information has been uncovered regarding the Islamist beliefs of Abedin’s parents. While it is certainly possible to disavow the ideology of one’s parents, Abedin has remained silent on their extremism as well as her work with on journal. It remains to be seen whether or not she will repudiate these new findings.

Syed Abedin, Huma Abedin’s father who died in 1993, was a Muslim scholar connected to the Saudi Arabian government. According to exclusive video footage from 1971 recently obtained by the Washington Free Beacon, Syed Abedin advocated the following:

As Muslim countries evolve, he said, “The state has to take over. The state is stepping in in many countries … where the state is now overseeing that human relationships are carried on on the basis of Islam. The state also under Islam has a right to interfere in some of these rights given to the individual by the sharia.”

In addition, he is quoted as saying, “The main dynamics of life in the Islamic world are still supplied by Islam. Any institution, as I said before, any concept, any idea, in order to be accepted and become a viable thing in the Islamic world has to come through … Islam.”

Abedin’s mother, Saleha, has an especially strong Islamist ties. She is a member of the female counterpart of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and the Muslim World League. She leads a group called the International Islamic Committee for Women and Child, a subsidiary of a Muslim Brotherhood-led group that is banned in Israel for its links to Hamas.

In 1999 and three years after Huma began working for the journal, the journal and Saleha Abedin’s group published a book in Arabic titled “Women in Islam: A Discourse in Rights and Obligations.”

The book states that man-made law is inherently oppressive towards women, while sharia law is liberating. According to the text, Muslim women have an obligation to contribute to jihad, apostates are to be put to death, adulterers should be stoned or lashed, freedom of speech should be conformed to the boundaries set by sharia and wives must have sex with their husbands on command, “even if she is not in the mood.“

In addition, the organization led by Huma Abedin’s mother “advocates for the repeal of Mubarak-era prohibitions on female genital mutilation, child marriage and marital rape, on the grounds that such prohibitions run counter to Islamic law, which allows for their practice,” according to an analysis by the Center for Security policy.

The book advocates against laws to assure equality of women, saying, “Man-made laws have in fact enslaved women, submitting them to the cupidity and caprice of human beings. Islam is the only solution and the only escape.”

In terms of women working in high positions, the book states, “Her job would involve long hours of free mixing and social interaction with the opposite sex, which is forbidden in Islam. Moreover, women’s biological constitution is different from that of men. Women are fragile, emotional and sometimes unable to handle difficult and strenuous situations. Men are less emotional and show more perseverance.”

However, an exception does exist: “Women can also participate in fighting when jihad becomes an individual duty.”

The New York Post reports that Saleha is on the payroll of the Saudi government and part of her job is to advocate for sharia law in non-Muslim countries like the United States.

“In 1995, less than three weeks before Clinton gave her famous women’s-rights speech in Beijing, Saleha headlined an unusual Washington conference organized by the Council on American-Islamic Relations [CAIR] to lobby against the UN platform drafted by Clinton and other feminists. Visibly angry, she argued it runs counter to Islam and was a “conspiracy” against Muslims.

“Specifically, she called into question provisions in the platform that condemned domestic battery of women, apparently expressing sympathy for men who commit abuse,” reported the newspaper.

We hope that Abedin does not hold the same opinions as her parents or the journal of which she was the assistant editor. And it would certainly be nice to have to tell us that.

Often the worst attacks on liberty are camouflaged with shining names. United Nations Human Rights Council Resolution (UNHRC) 16/18, among international governments’ worst assaults on the freedom of speech, was formally titled “Combating Intolerance, Negative Stereotyping and Stigmatization of, and Discrimination, Incitement to Violence and Violence Against, Persons Based on Religion or Belief.”

Who could be against that? Certainly not Hillary Clinton, then Secretary of State, who hosted the conference to help the UNHRC implement this resolution. She said that the United States was hosting this conference because the resolution captured “our highest values… enshrined in our Constitution.” In fact, what the Constitution protects is the freedom to criticize any idea – religious or otherwise. In fact, the Constitution forbids laws that establish any religion as beyond criticism, or as being especially protected by law.

Of course it will be no surprise that the real authors of 16/18 were members of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC). Hillary Clinton was the Obama administration’s point-person in working with the OIC. Of course it will come as no surprise that the real thrust of 16/18 is preventing criticism of Islam or Muhammad. Obama himself said that the future must not belong to those “who slander the Prophet of Islam.”

The UN’s Secretary General went so far as to say that the freedom of speech and expression did not extend to “insulting others.” He said this in 2012, after the high profile murders of cartoonists critical of Muhammed. He later claimed that 16/18 limited freedom of speech, which he called a “twisted negative logic,” a logic belonging only to the West and hostile to Islam.

It is an open question whether UN Resolution 16/18 endorses anti-blasphemy laws, but the OIC nations clearly believe that it does. The fact that Secretary Clinton would bill this resolution as an endorsement of America’s most treasured principles should be deeply alarming.

Hande Kader was 22 years old. Kader made a living through what Buzzfeed gently refers to as “sex work,” but was not in any sense ashamed of it. Rather, Kader was an outspoken advocate for transgender rights and regularly appeared in public to appeal for those rights. On the 12th of August, Kader was raped and burned alive.

Turkey recently had a shadow report submitted for United Nations inquiry regarding the Turkish culture of violence targeting gays, lesbians, and transgender citizens. Dozens of murders have targeted these communities. Turkish politics have been swinging in the direction of Islamist parties in the same period, and since the purge following a coup attempt last month those moves towards political Islam will be strongly cemented. Islamist parties generally call for strict enforcement of Islam’s sexual mores as codified in traditional understandings of sharia.

Yet the submitted United Nations report does not mention the word “Islam” even one time, nor the word “Sharia.” For those who prefer to make the distinction between sharia and fiqh, which not all Islamists do, the word “fiqh” does not appear either. The submitted report, which was compiled by a set of LGBT advocates, does mention that the Turkish military continues to use an old version of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) that codified homosexuality as a mental disorder. They do not speculate on what would cause Turkish military psychologists to refuse to accept the revisions to the DSM, now generations old, that changed this understanding of homosexuality. Even if you think the connection between codified religious law and a refusal to move off the old DSM is not obvious, surely it is a question that deserves to be asked. Yet even these LGBT organizations refuse to ask the question.

A similar but far lighter story played out this weekend in the United States. There lesbian newscaster Sally Kohn denied the connection between sharia and violence against her community. A satirical petition began to get her to spend a week without guards in a sharia-compliant city:

A lot of right-wing nazi bigots are saying Sally Kohn is an idiot for showing support for Sharia Law, especially considering that she is a gay woman. As progressives, we know both Sharia Law and Muslims are tolerant and very LGBTQ friendly.

In order to show how LGBTQ friendly the Sharia, and it’s practitioners, are, Sally Kohn should spend a week’s holiday proudly displaying her homosexuality in Raqqa/Riyadh or any other place where Sharia is the law of the land, without guards of course, to show how safe, and how pro LGBTQ these practitioners of Sharia Law are.

Kohn’s response to this petition was instructive. She said that she opposes what she characterized as “authoritarian right wing extremism” in countries like Saudi Arabia and Iran. However, she said, there were at least two non-Muslim nations on the list of nations in which homosexuality is punished by death. Likewise, there were several Muslim majority nations in which homosexuality is not punished by death. (Sometimes, she did not mention, it is merely punished with prison.) Thus, she denied any necessary connection between sharia and violence against LGBT citizens.

Rather, she would like to try to paint this as an issue of a broad political left versus a broad political right — broad enough that it is somehow sensible to speak of “authoritarian right wing extremism” in Iran and Saudi Arabia as being like right wing politics anywhere else.

Perhaps Kohn should investigate her assumption here by checking with Hillary Clinton, whom Kohn has endorsedin the Presidential election. Yet according to a report by Paul Sperry, Clinton’s liberal attitudes on sexual rights turn out to be constrained — just when she’s speaking to audiences in places like Saudi Arabia.

[I]n 2010, Huma Abedin arranged for then-Secretary of State Clinton to speak alongside Abedin’s hijab-wearing mother at an all-girls college in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. According to a transcript of the speech, Clinton said Americans have to do a better job of getting past “the stereotypes and the mischaracterizations” of the oppressed Saudi woman. She also assured the audience of burqa-clad girls that not all American girls go “around in a bikini bathing suit.”

At no point in her long visit there, which included a question-and-answer session, did this so-called champion of women’s rights protest the human rights violations Saudi women suffer under the Shariah laws that Abedin’s mother actively promotes. Nothing about the laws barring women from driving or traveling anywhere without male “guardians.”

What does Hillary Clinton know that Kohn does not, that causes Clinton to agree that bikinis are shameful and unworthy of female dignity when speaking to an Islamist audience? What does she know that causes her to avoid raising these most obvious of issues, or to challenge sharia’s legitimate power to force the submission of women as well as LGBT citizens? Clinton has no trouble challenging American “right wing extremists.” Doesn’t that suggest that there’s an important difference here, one that explains both why the oppression is so much stronger in Islamist nations and also why even ordinarily outspoken liberals like Clinton are afraid to challenge it there?

One can understand the hesitance of the LGBT groups in Turkey to raise the issue, as they might be burned alive. Kohn and Clinton have no such excuse. If they are not going to provide aid and comfort to these LGBT groups in Turkey, who will? Would Donald Trump?